I fed it a bunch of things that I've actually had trouble searching for recently, and it looks like Google did a better job of finding what little information was available. Bing had less relevant results.

I guess BING LOSE THIS COMPETITION

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

I was very surprised by the results of that, I had previously thought that there was no difference in the results and went with Google because I liked it better.Google won 5-0, now I have yet another reason not to use Bing.

Also, minimalism is so much better than a pretty picture. Plus google sometimes has awesome doodles, but they're rare enough that they're special when they're there.

Bing is surprisingly good, but it still doesn't quite measure up. The only one where it failed to come up with anything useful at all was "graph vortex". "Gnome twistcloth" was pretty bad too, though it did have 2 or 3 relevant results at least.

Google's text search is well ahead still, but I know many people (including myself ) who always prefer Bing's mapping. OSM's transport map is useful but Bing has much clearer general mapping than either Google or OSM, at least in the UK has proper Ordnance Survey contoured mapping, and IMO has better satellite/aerial imagery in most areas than any other free site I've seen.

I use bing because they give me rewards like xboxes or Skype credit. Now for complex searches I use Google, because I need to subtract keywords or limit search results in some way with the "inside search" tricks.

Minecraft and Mathematics; dragons and dinosaurs; raptors and rotational forces

Seing this thread active, I had another go (Google 4-1 of course).Looking at the 'Or, try these popular searches:' list, I can see how they got the claimed 2:1 ratios - by hyperoptimising Bing for celebrities and reality TV and then asking a bunch of idiots.

Bing seems to place shopping websites and paid access stuff (e.g. paid access journal papers) higher up the list. Also, when asked about programming problems, Bing has a tendency to provide instructions to solve it, Stack Overflow questions and such, while Google seems to be biased towards libraries to do it for you. Note, Bing interpreted "s" and "expressions" as separate terms, while Google correctly realized that it should be looking for "s expressions", or at least the algorithm they use values adjacency enough to give that perception.

I stumbled across this thread a few minutes after I was looking for a parallel version of diff. Google had fallen flat on its face (searching for "parallel diff" brings up stuff about displaying diffs as side-by-side; "parallelized diff" brings up stuff about what's the difference between parallel and concurrent), and I thought I'd try Bing. It actually did better -- it actually found a service that produces diffs of things in parallel -- but not what I wanted. (It's a service that will produce website diffs by making lots of parallel requests and comparing their rendering.) So a small win for Bing I guess?

95% of people prefer Google and 4% Bing, but when Bing started they really wanted that 4% to give them a shot. 4% is more than 0%. Plus the suggested searches helped a little so it's probably more than 4% in the challenge. Now that they've exceeded 4% of actual searches they don't want people to do the challenge anymore because a lot of their users might switch to Google.